If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Anyway. When you tie everything you see on the news into an End Times scenario, you are operating exactly like a conspiracy theorist, with all big newsworthy current events serving as grist to your mopey quasi-religious mill. You're not quite at Kathaksung levels yet, but give it time.

Oh, and don't bother with dramatic THIS IS WHAT A NUCLEAR BOMB DOES animations. I grew up in the Protect and Survive era. Been there, got the t-shirt and the leaflet through the door. Yawn. You actually want to know the closest this world has come to the nuclear end game? 1962. Cuban Missile Crisis. Nothing at the moment even compares to those shenanigans. And a lot of people back then thought THAT was the Apocalypse too.

No one said you were an idiot OR that you knew nothing about the world. What people are trying to say is that your reaction to everything that's going on is needlessly fatalistic (and on this board, that is saying something) and tinged with a bit of irrationality. You are acting like you know something that we all don't. WHY, I'm not sure. You are not gifted with any sort of exceptional knowledge outside of the realm of what the very intelligent, well read, and worldly folks on this board also have. Your increasingly unhinged histrionics about apocalypse aren't exactly proving your point. Whatever your point actually is, other than that the world is irredeemably fucked and we're all going to die pretty soon. Which, you know, maybe? We could get hit by an asteroid the size of Texas and then we're very well fucked.

Basically - you're not doing yourself any favors obsessing about this shit. There is limited stuff you can do. You can vote. You can sign petitions. You can educate yourself and others around you. You can pray, if that's your thing. It's not that some of what you are saying isn't wrong - there is truth in some of the things you are saying - but the vehement and often hysterical Doomsday Debate going on in here is a little unsettling tbh. And not really because of the subject matter but because you're clearly going through something. I'm sorry for that. It sucks. But this discussion has been completely derailed and has gone someplace we're all not really following...because again, this shit is nothing we don't already know.

That is my point. I don't think there is anything wrong with making that point, especially when the rational evidence is actually supporting it. I'm not worried about it because everyone dies sooner or later anyway. I agree that it is very unsettling, of course it is. But I would just like people to consider the option that if you believe the world is about to end, it doesn't automatically mean you are going through something. Actually it means we all are. I could have started talking more about how I believe death is not the end, but that is something even more ridiculous and contemptible to talk about here, no matter how well read people are. So I don't - people want to talk about the reality in front of their eyes, so that is what I'm talking about instead. I just think the truth is something that has to be brought up among the educated American middle-class, who can do something about this more than I can. I don't know what exactly should be done but if nobody else does either then God help us all.

Helen, the point is that the weapons of today are nothing like the weapons of 1962. I do know what the Cuban missile crisis is, but thanks for that. It was not anything close to this. Ask yourself the question of who you would want to listen to in the event that there was a conspiracy going on. Conspiracy theorists? If you want to deny that they have been right about things, go ahead, but that is a person in denial. You probably don't see me as kathaksung yet because I'm actually not mental, these things are real.

d want to listen to in the event that there was a conspiracy going on. Conspiracy theorists? If you want to deny that they have been right about things, go ahead, but that is a person in denial. You probably don't see me as kathaksung yet because I'm actually not mental, these things are real.

What would you say the ratio is of correct predictions vs incorrect predictions? And which conspiracy theorists do you take seriously?

I would think that the prediction made by the former head of the World Bank in that video was a correct one, and if you read point 18 it makes it clear that the IMF is increasingly going to become irrelevant. That means that there will be economic collapse in the US and other countries in the West in favour of the rising economic power of the BRICS countries, with China and Russia at the helm, and the unbelievably patriotic and militarily strong US not being the type to take it in their stride, either domestically or internationally. It is the home of consumerism; the American Dream becomes a nightmare for those of whom it isn't already. This means in the streets as well, because guns are everywhere along with the reactive nutjobs who own them. It also means martial law.

Obviously a lot of people spout a lot of crap and the Devil worshipping Illuminati aspect of it all is dubious, but the liaisons between Hollywood figures and shady political gangsters are not really to be as scoffed at as one might think. There are more incorrect predictions than correct ones, however it is quite easy to know whether a source is a schizophrenic person with too much time on their hands or whether it is a legitimate political or economic commentator or observer. The former head of the World Bank and the BRICS partners themselves aren't spouting crap. The former's talk being delivered at Stanford, with the line "this is something you're going to have to deal with", means we had better hope those 20 year olds know what's going on to some degree or another.

Originally Posted by Mordecai

What would you say the ratio is of correct predictions vs incorrect predictions? And which conspiracy theorists do you take seriously?

I'm amazed that RT even have a license to broadcast in the UK - their output is such blatant propaganda dressed as news, I'd assume it breaks impartiality regulations on an hourly basis. Friends in high places... Actually 'below the radar' is a more likely explanation as next to no one watches the thing, and only complaints from viewers can instigate enquiries.

Originally Posted by Zippo

It also means martial law.

Something about the Cuban missile crisis being no big shakes... can't remember where, I was skimming by then

You don't know what you're talking about and it isn't very interesting.

The world seems very messy these days, which might be an occasion to examine the broad forces producing the turmoil. But in Washington, of course, it becomes one more opportunity for partisanship. “I do believe that the things we’re seeing in the world today, [which is] in greater turmoil than at any time in my lifetime, [are] a direct result of an absence of American leadership,” said Sen. John McCain last weekend on CNN.

Really? McCain has had a long and distinguished life and I’m sure he remembers what happened in, say, 1973, the year he and 590 others were released from imprisonment in Vietnam. That year, in Vietnam alone, several hundred thousand people died as a result of the war.

And that doesn’t include the tens of thousands who died in the Yom Kippur War, also in 1973. The effect of that war was that, in retaliation for America’s involvement, the major oil-producing countries announced an oil embargo against the United States and its closest allies. Within a year the price of oil had quadrupled and the industrialized world was plunged into deep economic crisis, forever losing its access to cheap energy from the Middle East.

All this happened under the shadow of a potential nuclear war. The superpowers had almost 45,000 atomic weapons aimed at each other. During the Yom Kippur War, U.S. forces were put on high alert — DEFCON 3. The only time they had been placed at a more serious state of readiness, DEFCON 2, was during the Cuban missile crisis.

I could have picked 1956, the year the Soviet Union brutally suppressed a Hungarian uprising, France’s control of Vietnam collapsed, the French, British and Israelis mounted a failed invasion of Egypt, and Sino-American tensions over Taiwan continued to simmer, tensions that a few years earlier had Washington contemplating the use of nuclear weapons.

Today’s world is unpredictable, but it doesn’t compare with the kinds of geopolitical dangers that existed for decades during the Cold War, not to mention before that period. Still, it’s worth understanding what is producing this instability today.

In Eastern Europe, the key driver is that the Ukrainian people have decided that they do not want to live under the Kremlin’s thumb. That has produced tensions, but it is because people are demanding genuine independence from an old imperial system. That’s a positive development, however much it complicates life.

In East Asia, we are witnessing one of the oldest stories in history, the rise of a new great power. Is it really so surprising that China, the world’s second-largest economy, is seeking more political influence in its region?

In both these cases, the Obama administration has handled the challenges reasonably well, pushing back in a careful but determined manner, coordinating policy with allies and ensuring that the tensions do not get out of hand or spill over into active conflict.

It has been less successful dealing with the larger Middle East, the area of greatest turmoil. As the Yom Kippur War reminds us, this is not a new phenomenon. Zbigniew Brzezinski spoke of an “arc of instability” during the 1970s that looks remarkably similar to the area of unrest today. The Iran-Iraq war produced more than a million casualties in the 1980s. And then there were the two U.S.-led wars against Iraq, the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, two intifadas and so on.

The forces creating the present instability are deeper than ever before. The old order of the Middle East rested on two related facts — superpower support and repressive dictatorships. Both have weakened and, as a result, long-suppressed forces — of Islam, ethnicity and democracy — are bubbling up. The notion that Washington can stabilize this situation easily is foolish, as its long, costly experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan surely demonstrate.

For all the problems, let’s keep in mind that we live today in a world with considerably fewer dangers. Nuclear war is unimaginable. The Russian-American nuclear arsenals are down to one-fifth their size in 1973 and at a much lower level of readiness. In 1973, Freedom House published its first annual account of political rights around the world. At the time, countries listed as “not free” outnumbered “free” countries. Today that is inverted, with the number of “free” countries having doubled. Open markets, trade and travel have boomed, allowing hundreds of millions to escape poverty and live better lives.

Of course there are crises, problems and tensions around the world. But no one with any sense of history would want to go back in time in search of less turmoil.

Helen, I wonder if you would take that attitude if these things actually started happening. May I remind you that I'm not a religious nut so that is not going to work.

Religion is not a requirement for ascension. Ask Former Lord of Dark Ravings Ekki, who departed his online shell and ascended to the Other Worlds (where he could actually post) about the 2004 mark if I remember correctly.